139
139
Jan 15, 2013
01/13
by
CNBC
tv
eye 139
favorite 0
quote 0
the wealthy see charity and taxes two sides of the same coin. taxes go up, charity must go down. press secretary for george bush summed it up in a recent tweet saying, quote, i and many others will likely donate less in 2013. but a new study from the nonpartisan tech center says charitable giving may actually increase this year by $3.3 billion. tax hikes are actually the main reason why. here's how it works. taxpayers deduct their charity at their marginal tax rate. last year the wealthy could deduct 35 cents for every dollar they gave. the current rate is 39.6%. so they can deduct 39.6 cents for every dollar they give. their cost of giving has, in other words, fallen by 7% for those making $400,000 or more per year. the same is true if you're giving away stock or real estate that's appreciated in value. the higher capital gains rate making giving more economically attractive. the cliff deal does limit certain deductions. but the benefits of these higher tax rates more than makes up that limit on deductions. so net-net, the wealthy get a bigger tax cut this year for giving. it's
the wealthy see charity and taxes two sides of the same coin. taxes go up, charity must go down. press secretary for george bush summed it up in a recent tweet saying, quote, i and many others will likely donate less in 2013. but a new study from the nonpartisan tech center says charitable giving may actually increase this year by $3.3 billion. tax hikes are actually the main reason why. here's how it works. taxpayers deduct their charity at their marginal tax rate. last year the wealthy could...
162
162
Jan 17, 2013
01/13
by
CNBC
tv
eye 162
favorite 0
quote 0
whatever that tax rate works. it can cover their expense, buy books, scene their kids to school, put food on the table. it doesn't matter where the tax was a generation ago or three years ago because we assimilate, we're a productive capitalist society that assimilates. it on lie matters where you are. love steve liesman's presentation. it's about government spending. what i find fascinating, what we have here is on one side debt. on the other side we have stimulus but not really. okay. boy the board is even getting excited. but debt and stimulus are the same. it just depends on which side of the check you're on. the 1.2 trillion every year in debt is basically a stimulus. so why is it so shock or why is it that to stop increasing debt that once you do the numbers go down? you know what it's like? you remember those old cars in the old days. you had stick shift. your battery was dead you pushed it to get it going. say you have to pay your buddies 20 bucks to get a push. if after 50 pushes it doesn't start maybe th
whatever that tax rate works. it can cover their expense, buy books, scene their kids to school, put food on the table. it doesn't matter where the tax was a generation ago or three years ago because we assimilate, we're a productive capitalist society that assimilates. it on lie matters where you are. love steve liesman's presentation. it's about government spending. what i find fascinating, what we have here is on one side debt. on the other side we have stimulus but not really. okay. boy the...
131
131
Jan 16, 2013
01/13
by
CNBC
tv
eye 131
favorite 0
quote 0
you'll pay a big tax. well, apparently the repatriation is a lot more doable than they're being given credit for. i don't know exactly what that means, we'll bring it back once we do the lbo. the big question is why current management considered buying back stocks. there's a special committee here, of course. we'll see whether they can get to a price that every side agrees on and that shareholders will approve. >> yesterday, most of the day was spent pooh-poohing this deal. because of the repatriation. because of the equity check. >> it seemed to be insurmountable because the club deals are frowned upon at this point. >> then i want to ask you whether this is some sort of sea change. because this is obviously a much smaller check. yesterday we said it would be $8 billion. >> no, $4 billion to $5 billion. >> what i'm saying is, this is a rival departure from what we've seen from the little money put up. >> given the size of the hlbo - >> top line doesn't matter. this company's bottom line is larger than the
you'll pay a big tax. well, apparently the repatriation is a lot more doable than they're being given credit for. i don't know exactly what that means, we'll bring it back once we do the lbo. the big question is why current management considered buying back stocks. there's a special committee here, of course. we'll see whether they can get to a price that every side agrees on and that shareholders will approve. >> yesterday, most of the day was spent pooh-poohing this deal. because of the...